True that’s the remedy they want but isn’t she implying that that the entire law need not be invalidated if part of it is ruled unconstitutional?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Except that, literally, no judge will make that decision in advance, nor would one answer that question. Even did she EXPLICITLY WANT to overrule Roe, that does not mean she would in any particular case.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Thank you. Please keep setting the record straight.
-
Toobin is misleading you— she is exactly correct. The question is whether or not the provision can be severed or if the entire act must be struck down— that is what severability means.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you for pointing that out!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I was just thinking this morning that we hadn’t heard from you in a while.
-
Well gurll, he’s trending now...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Barrett's point is completely dishonest and disingenuous. The continuation of the provisions on preexisting conditions and lifetime limits depends ENTIRELY on how the the Court rules on severability.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not answering is one thing; lying is another.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.